Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Convicted criminal" in the first sentence

I'm sure I'm probably about to be reverted, but searching, I don't see a long discussion on this, so I'm gonna start one because I don't think this is relevant enough to deserve the prominence it has. There are all kinds of people who have, at one point or another, been convicted of a crime, justly or unjustly. There's a whole paragraph about the actual things he was convicted of further down in the lede, and I would also like to discuss moving these further down. While they're undoubtedly essential to his character, I don't think they're >50% of the reason he's notable (which current word counts in the lede would seem to imply). We don't afford people notability based on the crimes they commit per

WP:PERP
, so these things are only notable because he is, already, for other reasons, a notable figure.

I'm not out to make a martyr of the guy, obviously he's a rather unpleasant fellow for a number of reasons, but I can't help but think his criminal convictions are a backdrop for his notability, rather than a leading cause of them. This edit to the first sentence is in my opinion a first step in the right direction. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree the first sentence is
WP:UNDUE, especially when it's mentioned again later in the lead. I agree that it's not >50% of the reason he's notable; I suspect it is there for PoV reasons. — Czello (music) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
He has been convicted of more than one, throughout his life, and goes back to before he was notable as an activist. So it is very much part of his imager in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has been involved in numerous scrapes that have led to criminal convictions, and some of them are notable because they relate to his career as an activist. However, I agree that the wording in the opening sentence is rather clunky. Since this is already dealt with in the lead with more context, I've removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Scrapes'? Interesting choice of words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made an attempt at tightening up the lede to focus primarily on crimes that lend to his notability - such as his recent jailing for contempt of court. Happy to discuss/compromise on how to approach this. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more than a little concerning that the lede said he was convicted of stalking when the actual outcome was a civil order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not that he is in fact an international criminal? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a relatively unimportant backdrop to him already having existing convictions and being the leader of a far-right extremist group - ultimately, that's the reason why he used false documents in the first place. BrigadierG (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it makes him an international criminal, he has broke the law in more than one country. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already have enough information in the article to conclude that he committed a crime internationally. What's up with the insistence on that label in particular? Could it possibly be that the term "international criminal" calls into mind big threatening drug cartels and the like? The archetypal "criminal" is a loaded stereotype.BrigadierG (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It puts his call for asylum there into perspective? Nor do we say "international criminal" in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I think it is relevant and should be mentioned in the article body, but the question I'd put to you is this - is the reason he was travelling on a false passport a factor of:
1. His previous imprisonment for assaulting an off-duty police officer or
2. His leadership of the EDL
3. Something else
My current perception is that it's a product of 1 - something otherwise mostly unrelated to the reason for his notability. I would be convinced that it has a place in the lede if it can be shown the reason he needed to travel on false documents is because of his political affiliation (or because of some outcome or legal status connected to his political affiliation). BrigadierG (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the fact he was asking for asylum in a country he is not even allowed to legally enter needs to be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scrape, "a difficult or slightly dangerous situation that you cause by your own silly behaviour".[1] It was pretty silly of Robinson to attempt to enter the USA with someone else's passport, but I'm not denying that he has committed some serious offences.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

Born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [2][3][4] from RS. He says he was born Stephen Yaxley [5]. I assume the BBC interview ref in the body is him saying he was born Stephen Christopher Yaxley? Not gonna watch it as no time reference.[6] Meanwhile

WP:METRO is generally unreliable. So should we go by what Stephen says he was born as, or what RS say? The wordiness of the first sentence could be avoided here, if he was simply born as Yaxley-Lennon, per RS. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Given the fact he has gone under many names what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CNC (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoolignaism

Copsey makes it clear that drew on football hooligans, and this has now been removed, why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have broadly with this article (and many others like it) is that it frequently uses juxtaposition and category labels to create a tone that doesn't reflect the articles it sources from.
The original version of that claim said something in the form of "Robinson said it's not anti-muslim, but its members include hooligans and anti-muslim people". This way of phrasing things creates a juxtaposition of Robinson's statements against a statement from a source that emphasises that Robinson is an unreliable narrator. This is probably true, extremists aren't generally known for being reliable sources on their own beliefs when trying to make themselves look presentable to a mainstream audience, but it's not encyclopaedic to create this juxtaposition without it being presented this way in reliable sources.
I've put this back in as an attributed claim, but I'm intending to give the rest of the article a similar shakedown. If there are specific things you think I should keep in mind while doing this, would appreciate it in advance. BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANd we had a source for just that claim. And yes, you need to keep in mind do not to remove sourced content without discussion, and you need to self revert. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very dismissive response and I don't have a reply. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which part, that we had a source for this content, that you choose to remove the cite to? Or the request to not remove sourced content without asking first? The fact you have already removed cite content means you really need to get permission to remove anything (per
wp:brd) that might (as this was) get reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This is good, I would much rather have someone watching over my shoulder to make sure my edits are not problematic. I am doing my best to work with you collaboratively on this and come to compromises about contested content (eg mentioning being barred from the US in the lede), and I think it is only reasonable to go back and forth to some degree when a significant change is implemented.
My intent is generally not to add many new sources, nor remove many, just to try end edit the content to better reflect the sources in question and remove cases of
WP:LABEL. BrigadierG (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem with that is
WP:SYNTH , as stated we had a source that explicitly stated both the claims (and they do not violate label) you removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
All I've done is shift them from statements in wikivoice to attributions and removed the juxtaposition. What changes would you make to my edits? BrigadierG (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not, you removed the claim he wore a mask, you removed the text about how some of its members were football hooligans. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

UKIP should be removed from the political party section on the infobox as Robinson was never actually a member. While he was an adviser to party leader Gerard Batten, he was never a member as the party's constitution barred former members of far-right groups like the EDL and BNP. This is stated in the article body under 'Political activities'. No exception was made for him and UKIP kept this ban on far-right group members until 2023. 148.252.147.61 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as having this in the infobox gives the impression that he was a member of UKIP, which he wasn't. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So I have removed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation punctuation

@

logical quotation rule would be the right move. Aligning with this, the BBC News source actually uses logical quotation when it quotes Robinson: ...chanted "EDL till I die", as... (notice the comma outside the quotation marks). Either way, though, the "I'll drown you" quote (§ Almondbury Community School assault and legal action against Robinson should definitely not have a comma both before and after the quotation mark as it currently does: ...attacker, "I'll drown you,", while.... Again, correct me (w/ guideline) if I'm wrong! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 13:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Conspiracy Theories

Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See
wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The latter of those includes
WP:NOTSCANDAL
.
The subject of the article is meant to be presented from a neutral point of view, not portrayed as a paragon of justice and defender of children. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang are presented in this article as having been just invented? Exactly which text do you object to? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)&oldid=1230051248"